AV -
I once was discussing Phil2 with a fellow Trintarian a good while back.
You would have done better to discuss it with someone who actually knew what he was talking about.
Here is an excerpt from one of his emails.
Thankyou. I found it absolutely hilarious.
You may want to check out those suggested books.
*snip*
What, more humour? Sure, I'm good for it!
One of the key points is getting all the evidence on the proper translation of hARPAGMOS before you - Wright is very good on this - check his footnotes for further references. He differs a bit with Martin, but not on any major point.
"Not on any major point", eh?
Well, this is what Martin had to say:
The association of thought is the Old Testament, and there is an implied contrast between the two Adams. Less probably it has been proposed that the temptation and fall of Satan (see Isaiah xiv) as interpreted by later Jewish writers is the clue to the passage...)
Hence, in conclusion to this section we could rightly say that a close consideration of verse 5 would tend to support a translation of verse 6 as saying that Christ Jesus was not "equal" to God nor did he attempt "a snatching" at an equality." A translation that says that Christ Jesus did not "cling to" an equality with God would make it difficult to see Paul's point in verse 5.
Martin, Ralph (1959), The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary.
Hah!
There's an article by Hooker (I think, maybe it's Hoover) that Wright cites, that is killer - he tracks all the known KOINE uses of hARPAGMOS and demonstrates that is means "grasp onto something one already has."
*snip*
This is either the most breathtaking example of ignorance that I have ever seen in my entire life, or the most breathtaking example of hubris. I can't decide which.
The Liddell-Scott-James
Greek Lexicon (which includes a reference to Plutarch - the source that A. T. Robertson uses for his own definition of
harpagmos - as well as a reference to
Philippians 2), defines
harpagmos thus:
harpag-mos , ho, robbery, rape, Plu.2.12a; ha. ho gamos estai Vett.Val.122.1 .
2. concrete, prize to be grasped, Ep.Phil.2.6; cf. harpagma 2.
That's pretty clear, IMHO. Now let's see what the Bible has to say. Observe the following examples, which are listed in the 5th Edition of the
Concordance to the Greek Testament, (1978) by Moulton, Geden and Moulton:
- It was in the days of John the Baptizer that a situation first arose-a situation that still exists-in which the kingdom of heaven is stormed, and in which those who are eager to storm their way into it clutch at [harpazo] it.
Matthew 11:12; Barclay.
- Or, how can anyone get into a giant's house and carry off [harpazo] his goods, unless he first binds the giant?
Matthew 12:29; C.B.Williams.
- When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away[harpazo] what is sown in the heart
Matthew 13:19; New Revised Standard Version.
- Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force [harpazo], withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
John 6:15; New International Version.
- When the hired man, who is not a shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees a wolf coming, he leaves the sheep and runs away; so the wolf snatches [harpazo] the sheep and scatters them.
John 10:12; Today's English Version.
- I give them eternal life and they will never perish; no one will ever snatch [harpazo] them out of my care.
John 10:28; Revised English Bible.
- And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched [harpazo] Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more.
Acts 8:39; New American Standard Version.
- And when a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and take [harpazo] him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.
Acts 23:10; New American Standard Version.
- And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up [harpazo] to God and to his throne.
Revelation 12:12; New American Standard Version.
What is the common element in all these occurrences of
harpazo? Not once is it used in the sense of retaining something, but always in a way of a change - in an attempt at
gaining something not already possessed. Is the form of the word used in
Philippians 2 (
harpagmos) used with a different significance? The
Expositor's Greek Testament (1976) leaves us in no doubt whatsoever:
We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of it's derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession', 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast'.
In harmony with this exposition, the
Interpreter's Bible (1999) says:
Since he [the Son] had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to 'equality' with him; he might have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented his inferior place and thrown off his obedience...
Yet he never attempted the robbery which might have raised him higher...
But the Greek, and in English, the word 'robbery' involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belonged to God.
So much for
harpagmos.
This version conveys the idea more clearly what is actually being said:
*snip*
No, it's still wrong.